From yesterday's Mirror by Richard Smith

A boy of 14 appeared in court yesterday charged with nine rapes and five other sex offences.
The youth is said to have been 12 and 13 when he carried out the alleged attacks on a girl and boy aged eight and 10.
He is also accused of a serious sexual assault and of indecently touching a girl under 13.
The boy, who cannot be named, faces three further charges of inciting a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity.
All the alleged offences are said to have taken place between January 2005 and December 2006.
Exeter Youth Court remanded the boy on conditional bail.
He lives locally and arrived at court with his grandmother.


How can children be considered not to be capable of consent until they are 16 yet responsible for crimes like this when they were twelve?

Isn't there a conflict in morality in it?

Either they know what they are doing or they don't.
How can society have it both ways?

Yes JK a definite contradiction in terms.
We try so desperately to cling onto an innocence that frankly doesn't exist,but then the reality can be more like the events you just mentioned.
They're too young to consent,but not young enough to be excused their crimes.
In South Eastern Turkey kids of 13 still marry in the villages,same for India etc,etc.Time to get real about the facts of life.

I agree with the points made. British society thrives on confused morality and double standards.

Just let me play devil's advocate for a moment, though, making an assumption that the boy is actually guilty of the charges against him. He can't simply be excused and allowed to continue committing sexual assaults, can he?

I suppose the answer is to lower the age of sexual consent and put it in line with the age of criminal responsibility for such crimes. At least then there is a level playing field.

That's exactly my point Anthony.

Either young people should be considered old enough to make moral judgements or they should not.

Surely the only way is to educate them as early as possible and make it clear that if they kill or rape or abuse they will be punished.
Likewise anyone who kills or rapes or abuses them should be punished.

But saying that, if they willingly consented to mutual activities, they were too young to know better, is only fair if that is considered true across the board.

I think lowering the age of consent would be an absolute disaster. At present we have a situation where the age of consent for sex is 16.
If the age of consent was lowered to 14 for example I feel it would be playing into the hands of people who sexually abuse children. Since the introduction of the sexual offences act 2003 there are two brackets, one is sexual activity with someone under 16 and the more serious one is sexual activity with a young person under 13 as they are rightfully in my opinion unable to have the maturity to give consent to activity of a sexual nature. By lowering the age of consent I feel that more children of an even younger age would be more prone to sexual abuse.

Fair enough Ollie but if we don't replace the age of consent with education of how and when to consent at an earlier age, how can we prosecute kids for breaking the law when they are incapable of understanding that it's wrong - because we haven't informed them?

If the 12 year old boy in the case above was too young to consent to sex (as we all seem to agree he was), how can he be expected to understand about others consenting?

And if we all agree that we must teach children a respect for life at an early age, surely we must also teach them a respect for the consent of others?

The problem with age of consent laws are they're a quite recent invention by a 'western moral majority'.
Until about a hundered years ago the legal marrying age here was 13,it still is in parts of America.Most of Asia/Africa's poulation are producing children soon after puberty.
The moral of all this is that we've invented cultural norms in a vacumn,without thinking through the abnormalities,as JK has pointed out.
People mature at different ages,arbitary legally defined laws can never hope to cope with that.Much more discretion should be allowed to judges to consider if the minor is capable of making a judgement,or if they were coerced against their will.Only then will some commonsense prevail here.

I certainly think that "actual" consent should be considered alongside "legal" consent. For example if a 17yr old boy has sex with his 15yr old girlfriend, there is no legal consent, but there is most likely actual consent. The law is the law, but discretion is (or should be) a part of legal proceedings. One way could be to allow for retro consent - for example, once the girl reaches 16 she could be asked if she gives retro consent. Meanwhile, the boyfriend could be on conditional release.

It makes sense to protect children who have not reached puberty and are, therefore, sexually immature. Beyond that, there is a need for discretion and common sense. Some teenagers are more able to handle a relationship than some adults. I think 14 is a reasonable age for consent. If sex is against the wishes of either person, then it's illegal (and wrong) regardless of age.

The key point should be the difference in age between the two parties. Is it abuse for one 11 year old to experiment with a 12 year old? I know i did it when i was a kid. The alarm comes when one party is much older than the other.

The age of consent means nothing. If a forty year old man was sleeping with a 16 year old girl it would be unsettling even though it's legal.

Unsettling? I'd call it sick...

I see no reason at all why we should even consider lowering the age of consent.

Let's face it, by doing so a number of very sick individuals would be rubbing their hands with glee.

Jerry Lee Lewis was allowed to marry a thirteen year old girl. I mean, what kind of man must he have been? And what kind of parent would allow their CHILD to marry at that age?

Well Pete, I'm with you personally (I find teenagers exhausting just to talk to these days, al that bling and hip hop) but when 80 year old men fall in love with 18 year old girls and vice versa, although it's beyond my comprehension on both sides, if they are both happy, why not?

I can't see why it's any of my business. Indeed, if they are both in love I'm happy for them.

God forbid we should all conform to the tastes of others.

Not so many years ago one of the tabloids (forget which) reported on the marriage of a 60yr old man to his girlfriend on her 16th birthday. They sent their congratulations. I couldn't help thinking how different their story would have been if they'd written it one day earlier. He'd have been labelled a pervert, and her parents would have been demonised for allowing such a relationship.

Morality is often dictated by law. If the age of consent is 14, many currently unacceptable relationships would become acceptable. Nobody saw this marriage as immoral, because it was legal. It's obvious they had some kind of relationship before her birthday, although not necessarily sexual, but since she was legal age by the time people knew about it, there was no criticism.

I recall all of the fuss over the ex-teacher who was taken off the 'dangerous list' by Ruth Kelly. He'd had a relationship with a pupil who he went on to marry. They stayed together, raising a family, for 17 years. His attraction to her did not imply atraction to other young girls. He simply fell in love with an individual who happened to be under the legal age. At worst he'd acted unethically. The media and public reaction to Ruth Kelly's decision was out of all proportion.

The ironic thing is that each of us, including those who violently oppose older men having sex with young girls, will be descended from at least one such relationship. These relationships are not un-natural, and were once quite common. They have become unacceptable because they are now illegal.